The debate over whether to arm rebels in Libya still rages, although given that we have CIA operatives on the ground coordinating airstrikes and a secret finding authorizing the President to provide covert support, including arms shipments, it seems like something of a red herring. But for what it’s worth, it’s incredibly unpopular. We knew that House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (who would statutorily have to be consulted and give his assent even in a covert shipment, though that never stopped Ronald Reagan) was against it, and he mentions to Foreign Policy that the Obama cabinet was split on the notion. More important, Turkey, the only majority-Muslim member of NATO, is against it.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.

Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”

Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”.

Given the importance that the White House has attached to the buy-in of Muslim nations for the mission, I think that just about kills it. But Charlie Savage raises a good point that is somewhat related. If the UN mandate includes the responsibility to protect civilians, what happens if the Libyan rebels, whether armed by the West or not, strikes at civilians? NATO has warned the rebels not to attack civilians, even ones who support Gadhafi. This is quite a statement:

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”

I think this shows the nature of the clusterfuck we’ve stumbled into. We have at once taken sides in a civil war and also floated above it with a mandate to protect civilians, which may lead to us bombing anyone with a gun in Libya. This mandate is ripe for misunderstandings and the rebels on the ground turning on the coalition. And then you have to ask who, exactly, is a civilian, in all of these cases.

Robert Gates got an earful from Congress today about the mission, and the only decent takeaway was his adamant insistence that the US would not put forces on the ground. But lawmakers were quite angry about not being consulted, though honestly I tend to agree with Jim Cooper, paradoxically on this one. Congress doesn’t want this responsibility, they only want to throw stones later:

A resolution of support for the military action in Libya would be welcome, (Gates) noted.

That riled several Republicans who quickly predicted that such a resolution would likely fail in the House.

“I certainly would not be supporting it,” said Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH). “This mission is unclear and its goals are unclear.”

“This administration has not been honest with the American people that this [mission] is about regime change,” said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO). “This is just the most muddled definition of an operation probably in U.S. history.”

But Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), a centrist, responded by turning the tables on Congress. If Congress wants to start requiring Presidents to seek war power resolutions before authorizing military action, it needs to rewrite the laws and be more consistent in its requirements. The Senate, for instance, passed a resolution approving the creation of a no-fly zone in Libya before Obama launched the strikes.

“It’s really easy to do all of this Monday-morning quarterbacking,” he said. “We should be more than just arm-chair generals.”

If Congress wanted to reassert its Constitutional authority over war powers, they could do so any day of the week, in my view. It’s a choice that they don’t.

One good bit of news is that Fogh Rasmussen, normally a U.S. lapdog, has opposed arming Libya insurgents.

“Nato chief rules out arming Libyan rebels”
Rasmussen says Nato is there to protect people, not arm them
By AFP
Published Thursday, March 31, 2011

Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday he opposed arming Libyan rebels, stressing Nato had intervened to protect and not to arm Libyans.
“We are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm the Libyan people,” Rasmussen told reporters.
“As far as Nato is concerned, and I speak on behalf of Nato, we will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo and the clear purpose of an arms embargo is to stop the flow of weapons into the country,” he said.
“Nato will fully implement that part of the UN Security Council resolution,” Rasmussen said, noting the alliance had “taken note of ongoing discussions in different countries” about arming the rebels.

WASHINGTON, March 31, 2011 – As NATO assumed command of coalition operations in Libya this morning, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the House Armed Services Committee that U.S. forces will “significantly ramp down” their commitment in the operation.

Gates said U.S. efforts in Libya will provide the capabilities other nations don’t have in kind and scale.

During the first phase of Operation Odyssey Dawn, U.S. forces provided the bulk of military assets and firepower, logistical support and overall command and control, Gates told the lawmakers. The U.S. focus as the operation continues will be electronic attack, aerial refueling, lift, search and rescue, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, he said.

“There will be no American boots on the ground in Libya,” the secretary added.

Gates stressed that coalition military operations in Libya are not aimed at ending the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. “In my view,” he said, “the removal of Colonel Gadhafi will likely be achieved over time through political and economic measures and by his own people.”

What the NATO-led mission, now called Operation Unified Protector, can do is “degrade Gadhafi’s military capacity to the point where he –- and those around him –- will be forced into a very different set of choices and behaviors in the future,” Gates said.

Gates don’t know much, but he do know that War makes money for the MIC (himself included). In Gate’s view, that is always a good thing.

He can surely bullshit his way around the rest of it. Touting the effectiveness of Surges, Incursions, Progress, turning corners, training the locals (they stand up – we stand down), spreading freedom and democracy, etc.

Arab Banking Corp., a lender part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya, used a branch in New York to borrow at least $5 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve as credit markets seized up in 2008 and 2009.

and

“It is incomprehensible to me that while creditworthy small businesses in Vermont and throughout the country could not receive affordable loans, the Federal Reserve was providing tens of billions of dollars in credit to a bank that is substantially owned by the Central Bank of Libya,” said Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, in a letter to Fed and U.S. officials.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”

From the beginning of the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution, the US military and spokespeople have been bigfooting it. That ran counter to the content of their narrative that the US was not driving the situation (which likely is in this case true; it’s Sarkozy who needs an electoral boost short-term, and Cameron wants to earn his spurs.)

Meanwhile Gaddafi’s propaganda efforts have been focused on convincing the world that (1) it is imperialist aggression and (2) it’s a civil war motivated by al Quaeda. Well, that was not how it started in February. And any revolutionary group understands that there are two things you do not do: muddy the issue by getting foreign boots on the ground and antagonize the civilian population so that they no longer want you to win. Those are just basic. And from the driving of Gaddafi’s troops out of Benghazi forward, what started as unorganized anger against Gaddafi’s treatment of protest in Benghazi and an unorganized takeover of the city has become more organized as events moved along. The political arm of the rebels is the Interim Libyan National Council, which is handling administration of civil responsibilities in Benghazi and for now Ajdabiyah. The military forces, a mixture of the youths and others who drove Gaddafi forces out plus former Gaddafi military units that switched sides have been becoming more organized. There is no indication that they want to attack civilians. The NATO policy was an answer to a hypothetical issue raised in the very long discussions about taking over the mission.

From a practical standpoint, the US should not arm the Libyan rebels. The arms that they are currently using are captured from the Gaddafi regime. They are mostly of Russian manufacture and those who are teaching the new recruits to use them are former Gaddafi military. US arms would require US trainers and ammunition to fit US weapons. Someone outside NATO could arm them, someone who is the beneficiary of Russian weapons.

The new equipment that has shown up in rebel hands are hand-held communications equipment. It would be easy enough for the French to provide this equipment; they have recognized the Interim Libyan National Council as the legitimate government of Libya, and Benghazi is a port.

Meanwhile, Mouusa Koussa and some other inner circle ministers in Gaddafi’s regime are heading to the exits. And one wonders what they understand about the real state of the Gaddafi regime that is not yet apparent outside Gaddafi’s compound.

Why the worry about arming the rebels? Don’t our on the spot CIA, DIA, MI6 or other shops know the mix of any extremists, and their numbers? Or for that matter the disposition of the 190000 or so weapons “lost” under Petraeus’s watch in Iraq that found their way into Libya? Look forward, and let the next Administration worry about blow back. Britain, Europe and the US finally had a raison d’être to rid themselves of a typically poor choice to govern Libya. Let’s not spoil their fun, regardless of the cost.

In principle, the UN Security Council could order an ICC investigation of US officials and all signatories to the ICC would have to obey requests to deliver the US official to the Hague. I’m sure you see the two loopholes in that process. But a US abstention would be sufficient for it to pass should an administration not want its fingerprints on turning over a US official and Canada could deliver them to the Hague. Some future administration might want to consider the implications of that process.

Remember when all the talk was about the “too big to fail” banks having to pay off “counterparties”. It was clear then that what was being talked about was foreign-owned banks, some of which were owned by foreign governments. I would ask the further question of what other unsavory characters were the heads of state of banks that received these “counterparty” payments from the Fed.

I learned a couple of days ago that you can’t copy & paste from PDFs. Can you do a search on them?

On edit: The PDFs I was looking at were the consultant’s presentations to VT for the single-payer plan. I was specifically looking for cost-saving data. I lucked out bc they were in several diff packets & by looking at the title, I managed to get the right one on the first try. I also figured the data I was looking for would prolly be in a table, so I just scrolled thru looking at table titles (very few of them in pages & pages of text), until I found what I was looking for. Took about 10 minutes.

If I’d been the consultant, I’d have buried the #s in text. The doc I was looking at was about 50 pages long, another nearly 200 pages.

I also learned, quite by accident, that the infamous Gruber model was used.

Bloomberg News reporters received two CD-ROMs, each containing an identical set of 894 PDF files, from Fed attorney Yvonne Mizusawa at about 9:45 a.m. in the lobby of the Martin Building in Washington.

In for a penny, in for a pound. The President has no choice now but to go the full Monte. They have to take out Ghadhafi and install a puppet. That was the original scenario (at CIA, at least), and at this point it is the only possible solution. The problem is that it goes beyond the UN mandate. But what’s a piece of paper among friends? Sort of like the American Constitution.

Your statement is so blatantly false, I can’t even be bothered to write the usual paragraphs I do. Do you actually have anything other than paranoia and cynicism that supports your assertion that the CIA, Pentagon, or White House want to or have any plans to ‘install a puppet?’ I’ll answer that for you: no, you do not. This is becoming a recurring theme on FDL. If it’s keeps going this route, FDL will fade into the background.

And as a side note, the CIA doesn’t suggest policy. They provide analysis of possible outcomes of executive or legislative action. Have you ever read a PDB or an NIE?

Fogh Rasmussen: his bark is worse than his bite. Anglo-Franco-American Special & Black Ops are arming “whoever the Libyan rebels are”, even as Fogh speaks. Real Pepe Escobar for an illuminating expose of this farce:

Your statement is so blatantly false, I can’t even be bothered to write the usual paragraphs I do. Do you actually have anything other than paranoia and cynicism that supports your assertion that the CIA, Pentagon, or White House want to or have any plans to ‘install a puppet?’

States used to have colonies. States used to fight wars of conquest. The United States used to be isolationist. By your logic, Africa is still a collection of British, French and Dutch colonies, states wage wars to gain territory, and the United States stays out of international affairs. Oh, and we also installed puppets in reunified Germany and Kosovo. (And Haiti, and Somalia.)

Again, any actual evidence, aside from paranoia and cynicism (not that those are evidence, mind you), of a plan to install a puppet? During the HCR debate, FDL was filled to the brim with empiricism. What happened?

First source is written by a freelance journalist and self-proclaimed economic expert who believes the Earth is cooling and that oil is produced through abiogenisis. But I won’t dismiss the content because of its author.

So, I’m going to dismiss the content because: (a) it opens with saying the United States used covert action to overthrow Mubarak; (b) Engdahl purports that the Muslim Brotherhood has connections with freemasonry and insinuates that American and British Intelligence does as well; (c) he also purports that the National Endowment for Democracy created the 2003 Rose Revolution in Gerogia.

You know, I’m not even going to continue with that. The piece is ridiculous conspiracy backed up by flimsy sources and little empirical fact. Do you have any serious evidence? Government documents? Pieces by reputable media outlets? Pieces by sources that would actually be accepted in an academic paper?

As for the second, ignoring the clear and obvious bias (I mean, really — any sources that would accepted in a college paper?), there is nothing in that short article providing evidence that the United States is planning on installing a puppet government. It’s as much evidence as a comment on a blog that the United States is planning on installing a puppet government.

Your argument was that because we’ve done it before, we’re going to do it again. My counter-argument described things we’ve done before and haven’t done again. How did I not provide an answer to you? I showed the flaw in your logic.

I asked you two simple-to-answer questions. You scurried away from them both, possibly in an attempt to remove the impression that you don’t know our history.
But I should not assign motive. The questions stand.

The non-binding resolution the Senate passed didn’t actually give a green light to the no-fly zone over Libya. It effectively exhorted the UN to create a no-fly zone and the rest.

CR S1075-1076

“Welcomes the vote of the U.N. Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC), imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing Gadhafi family assets, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors.

Urges: (1) the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and (2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.

Welcomes: (1) the African Union’s (AU) condemnation of the disproportionate use of force in Libya and urges the AU to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya, (2) the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) decision to recommend Libya’s suspension from the Council and urges the U.N. General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya’s rights of Council, (3) Secretary of State Clinton’s attendance at the UNHRC meeting in Geneva and urges the Council’s assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya, and (4) U.S. outreach to Libyan opposition figures in support of an orderly transition to a democratic government in Libya.”